* Andreas Jochens (aj@andaco.de) wrote: > On 04-May-08 12:23, Alex Perry wrote: > > 4. Why can't we (as in the biarch and the pure64 teams individually) > > simply adopt the proposed multiarch naming convention immediately ? > > > > We'd put softlinks from /lib and /lib64 to the respective multiarch > > locations, > > I think that according to the current multiarch proposals the > correct multiarch library paths would be /lib/x86_64-linux and > /lib/i386-linux. Something along those lines, yes. > We could make /lib64 a symlink to /lib/x86_64-linux, but what about > /lib/i386-linux? A kind of circular symlink from /lib to /lib/i386-linux? > The same would apply for the /usr/lib64 and /usr/lib paths. That'd be why we need to have a dh_installlib or whatever it's going to be which will put the libraries into the correct places. > This seems to be a general weakness of the current multiarch proposals. Not really. It does mean library packages will need to be changed, but that's true pretty much no matter what you do. The goal at the moment is to minimize the number of changes that need to be made and to make it as simple as possible to implement the changes. Then we'll need to go through and update all of them. This would also be why we're not going to do this for pure64. > Maybe the current multiarch proposals should be changed to use the > following paths: > > /x86_64-linux/lib > /x86_64-linux/usr/lib [...] Hell no. > This kind of altered multiarch approach would make your proposal for > using symbolic links to the correct locations possible, i.e. > > /lib -> /x86_64-linux/lib > /usr/lib -> /x86_64-linux/usr/lib No, no, no. Forget it, that's nasty. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature